The following excerpt is from Houston v. United States, 217 F. 852 (9th Cir. 1914):
'To require an overt act to be proven against every member of the conspiracy, or a distinct act connecting him with the combination to be alleged, would not only be an innovation upon established principles, but would render most prosecutions for the offense nugatory. It is never necessary to set forth matters of evidence in an indictment.'
In Heike v. United States, 227 U.S. 131, 145, 33 Sup.Ct. 226, 229 (57 L.Ed. 450) the court said:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.